IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.57076 OF 2013 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN:
THE KARKALA JAYCEES EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) KARKALA-574104 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI T RAMACHANDRA NAYAK.
(By Mr. MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES UDUPI DISTRICT A BLOCK, RAJATADRI MANIPAL-576104 UDUPI DISTRICT.
2. SRI Jc. CHITRANJAN SHETTY S/O LATE SRI JAYARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT SWARNA GOWRI HOUSE 13TH CROSS, TELLAR ROAD KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK-574104.
3. SRI Jc. ANANDA HEGDE S/O LATE SRI DEVADAS HEGDE AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NANDANA ATHUR CHURCH ROAD KABETTU, KARKALA TALUK-574104.
(By Smt. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS Mr. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY R, ADV., FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.24.1.13, PASSED BY THE R1, HEREIN ENCLOSED AS ANN-A. GRANT INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER DT.24.1.13, PASSED BY THE R1, HEREIN ENCLOSED AS ANN-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Sri.Sanathkumar Shetty K., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Record perused.
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks for quashment of the impugned order dated 24.01.2013 by which the petitioner has been informed that no proceeding is intended to be initiated by the respondent No.1 as the dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Society is pending adjudication in a civil suit.
3. From perusal of the grounds indicated in the petition, it appears that the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the same is erroneous and unsustainable in law. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the action of the respondent No.1 is justified and the matter is subjudiced.
4. Taking into account that the dispute with regard to the office bearers is pending adjudication in a civil suit, the action of the respondent No.1 in refusing to initiate the proceeding under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, cannot be said to be unjustified. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. In the event, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE RV